The above question is wrongly phrased; because it implies that blasphemy laws are optional; whereas there Always Are blasphemy laws - and the only aspect that varies, are what 'religion' those blasphemy laws defend.
There used to be Christianity-defending blasphemy laws; but now there are Leftism-defending blasphemy laws (plus blasphemy laws defending some other, Not-Christian religions).
But when there are laws, there will be de facto blasphemy laws.
Of course, ideally there are no laws - in Heaven there are no laws. But when we must have laws... well, some of them will be defending the moral system of that society; including when that morality is strategically evil, as now.
I don't think this is true. It is true that there will always be sanctions for saying things that society regards as "blasphemous," but the question of whether the law should support these sanctions (with blasphemy/hatespeak laws) or attempt to protect its citizens from them (with guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of religion) or some combination of the two, is a legitimate question.
@William - I don't think that there is ever (or never more than briefly) freedom of speech/ religion that extends as far as the core 'values' of a society.
I suppose the differences are between societies where the ideal is that everything not forbidden is permitted, and the opposite.
Of course not every law is always implemented etc.
Post a Comment